A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XV-- June 13, 2003
Robert Alef and G. Stolyarov II
MR. ROBERT ALEF: In his latest article, Michael Miller speaks of nihilism as the source of all evil in the world. "Emotional expression of nihilism is 'hatred of the good for being the good.'"
"Nihilism is radical rejection of self-interest, of what Kant called 'inclination.'"
Good and evil are relative terms that just about everyone in the world has a different definition of, but that is a different debate.
So, nihilism, in nature, hates self-interest. Miller cites the Nazis as an example of a one of the horrors of the 20th century with nihilism as its foundation. If Hitler and other Nazi leaders did not have the interests of himself and his people at heart, then what did they have at heart?
Also, Miller says people today need to show more self-interest in order to save the world.
This makes no sense to me at all. If you have ever asked a high school student (or just about anyone born in the last 30 years maybe longer) what he wants out of life, with few exceptions, he'll answer (and I quote one of them I won't include names unless you really want one), "a hummer and a fine a** bit*h." This is about as selfish as it gets. I don�t see a majority of the student population running around helping each other. Maybe I just need to pay more attention to the world, but I doubt it.
MR. G. STOLYAROV II: Not so. Self interest prompts individuals to pursue genuinely beneficial values without harming others. After all, mutual value-trade is more advantageous than bashing producers over their heads to extort their goods.
Moreover, Hitler did not have the interests of his people or his own genuine benefit in mind. He was seeking power for power's sake, control for the sake of control, domination for the sake of domination, not the forging of any constructive values but rather the cleansing of individuals, the rejection of the notion of every individual's importance, for the sake of a collectivist "racial purity" (and recall, from Mr. Miller's article, that collectivism is the offspring of nihilism). As for those who pursue hummers and girls, I merely think that they do not have their genuine interests in mind. Rather, they are conforming to the pop-culturist elite's perception of what is supposed to bring them pleasure and fulfillment, and are thereby subordinating reality to collective opinion, which is not selfish. A truly selfish man would pursue that which objectively betters his material and intellectual state, regardless of what others may subjectively think.
By the way, the perception of good and evil as relative is quite nihilistic in itself.
MR. ALEF: Then who is in charge of telling us what we can and cannot do?
MR. STOLYAROV: There must be a limitation on the physical force that the individual can initiate against others. Such is the function of the government, to retaliate against violators of civil liberties. As for the rest, it is the function of only the individual and his own reasoning mind. The individual's own mind must ultimately decide what his best interests entail. Others may disagree and suggest to the contrary, but it must be the ultimate prerogative of the individual to either consider or ignore their suggestions.
MR. ALEF: Indeed, today, in the United States, laws work well for protecting civil liberties. Does this mean that power is in charge of what is right and wrong? In Nazi Germany, laws were not protecting civil liberties of citizens. As for the individual's own reasoning mind, I have a rather pessimistic view of the average person's ability to reason. I realize that you have probably never been in a regular class in High School, but last year I was in one and I think you would be surprised at what my moron classmates based their beliefs off of. I am not a fan of Nietzsche, but I do agree with his idea of nonuniversal suffrage. Most people are too stupid to figure out for themselves what is right and wrong. They need either religion or good parents to mentor. That's my opinion.
MR. STOLYAROV: Power is not precisely in charge of right and wrong, but rather of what people may not do, and what penalties are to be imposed for violations of laws. It is the job of the constituency and electorate of any given government to check against abuses of that power and ensure that it does not violate the boundary between protection and compulsion. Because Nazi Germany was an authoritarian state, there existed no such checking mechanism, so Hitler was allowed to pursue power without the restrictions placed on it in a republic.
As for reasoning capacity, I would attribute the lack thereof in the majority of today's students to precisely their need to be determined outside themselves, by an external authority, and to substitute the external authority's reasoning for their own. That, indeed, is the entire premise behind conformity: "Eminem says..." or "Britney Spears wears..." instead of "I have performed my own thinking and have concluded that Eminem is a vulgar brute and Britney Spears is a fraud." This conformity, of course, is the least of the consequences that can result from a paternalistic/authoritarian mindset as opposed to an individualistic/rational mindset. Hitler wielded the same sort of psychological power, in essence if not in degree. And the conformity and self-sacrifice imposed by most major religions (this is where I agree with Nietzsche) further serves to incapacitate the individual's independent faculties and render him dependent on the dictates of higher authority. But if these individuals are denied official external guidance (i.e. that coercively imposed upon them by the government in the form of psychiatry, volunteerism, and public education), then, tossed into a world where they have naught but their own mind to guide them, they will have no choice but to develop autonomy (and selfishness) or perish. That is one of the reasons why deregulation is so appealing to me.
MR. ALEF: As for the rest, you are now suggesting that people should conform to your definition of selfishness. Yes, Hitler wanted power ... for himself and control ... for himself.
That is similar to me wanting good grades not for the sake of good grades, but for
myself. When the kids that I speak of were inside of a hummer or with a good looking
girl/boy friend they looked pretty fulfilled to me. I do not think that most people in the world are searching selfishly for some deeper enlightenment, nor do they want to. Do you also believe that the Russians testing of nuclear bombs in Kazakhstan, near populated areas was a good thing since the Russians were acting in their own interests? Of course not. So, what selfish pursuits are you speaking of? Genuinely beneficial is a pretty general term.
MR. STOLYAROV:
1. In the case of Hitler, power for power's sake (not as a means to any tangible end) is not genuinely selfish, because power is not a definite material commodity nor can it directly yield increases in one's standard of living. As I like to say, an ordinary citizen in a free country enjoys a far superior standard of living to the dictator of a totalitarian state. This is so perhaps not in terms of raw resources controlled, but rather the amount of technological progress and commercial competition that that individual is able to enjoy, both of which are inevitably stifled in a dictatorship or oligarchy.
2. The possessor of a hummer and girlfriend may be happy in the short term, until his mortgage on the hummer soars to stratospheric quantities and his girlfriend abandons him for a frivolous cause or a fancy toward another. This almost inevitably occurs with non-multi-millionaire teenagers today. Hence, it would be selfish to strive to avoid such crises, perhaps by delaying the hummer purchase as well as the initiation of a relationship until the financially secure days of adulthood.
3. Whether hummers and girlfriends are positive aims to strive for is not the question here. Had they not possessed the drawbacks I mentioned, they likely would have been. But genuine selfishness, as you had mentioned, also entails the use of reason, which is the only means by which one can truly obtain the commodity one desires. One cannot merely wish and make it so. One must follow the scientific principles of causality in order to obtain one's goals, otherwise he is not selfish, but rather shooting in the dark and hoping that he will hit the mark. As for the Russian nuclear tests, once again, the question of the benevolence of nuclear weapons is not so significant as the issue of whether drawbacks exist that render the resultant situation worse than that which would have existed in the absence of the deed. And, given the damage to human life and Russian PR that resulted from the tests, I would say that they were.
4. By the way, the selfish man can only exist if others have the same rights to be selfish as he. Therefore, it is in his best interest to avoid enslaving or coercing other individuals, else there shall be no barrier from the same acts being imposed upon him.
MR. ALEF: So, it is in the selfish man's best interests to perhaps help others to be able to achieve their wants and desires. Or are you arguing for a world in which we all leave each other alone to our own business?
Another question from a theoretical scenario-- I need a promotion in order to keep my standard of living (house, nice car, good food etc.) and my boss gives the promotion to someone not as qualified as I because he and the boss are in cahoots. He did tell me that I was his second for the position. Isn't it selfish (and therefore right) for me to kill my coworker in order for me to get the promotion, keeping my standard of living? Or is killing my coworker not selfish? It seems like a pretty logical action to me if you look at the world. For example, what would a tiger do to another tiger if there was a single piece of meat in a 20 mile radius and neither had eaten for days? Isn't selfishness simply looking out for #1?
MR. STOLYAROV:
"So, it is in the selfish man's best interests to perhaps help others to be able to achieve their wants and desires."
Yes! This is the essence of capitalism and free-market exchange. That is why men, due to their inherent inability to produce the entirety of the values necessary for their individual existences, must trade with one another and exchange services bilaterally as they deem most advantageous.
In terms of the hypothetical scenario and killing your coworker, your boss also possesses a right to act on his self-interest and dispose of his property, i.e. his firm, as he sees fit. You cannot claim a right to a job because that would inherently impose a positive obligation on him who can give you that job. The boss, in this case, is an absolute knucklehead, for he sacrifices productivity to connections and favor-mongering, like the typical altruist. You would do best (and in your optimal self-interest) to search for another more rational employer. Usually, working for a people-pleaser is never advantageous in the long run. (Self-interest is more complex than mere monetary or even material acquisitions. It also must preserve the integrity of your body, and of the intellectual processes by which you acquire what you seek. Otherwise, you sacrifice your lifelong mechanisms for temporary and transient "goodies.")
Moreover, the tiger (though not consciously, as animals cannot reason) would find it in his best interests to join with the other tiger and hunt for little prairie rodents in the vicinity (perhaps leaving the deserted area they are currently in would be of assistance). Cannibalism is unpredictable, unhealthy, and repulsive.
G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, writer for Objective Medicine, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at [email protected].